Delay In Delivery Of Possession, New Delhi District Commission Holds Ansal Landmark Townships Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant booked a residential unit in a project known as "Aastha Apartment" located in Sushant City, Meerut, for a total amount of Rs. 6,90,379/-. An agreement was executed between the Complainant and M/S Ansal Landmark Townships Private Limited (“Builder”) on 23rd August 2009. The Complainant paid the full amount demanded by the Builder. According to Clause 5 of the agreement, the Builder was legally obligated to complete the construction within two years from the commencement date, following the receipt of the sanctioned plan from the competent authority. However, the Builder failed to inform the Complainant about the sanctioning of the plan and the start of construction.

The Complainant issued a legal notice through an advocate and requested updates on the construction status and the expected date for handing over possession of the unit. This notice was returned undelivered with a remark indicating "No such Company." Subsequently, the Complainant sent another notice to the latest address of the Builder, which was served, but the Builder did not respond. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Builder.

The Builder contested the complaint and argued it was misconceived and that the Complainant was not a consumer. The Builder also cited Clause 32 of the agreement, which required disputes to be resolved amicably through mutual discussion or arbitration if necessary. Furthermore, it claimed that the District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction as the property was not within its jurisdiction.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that there was an inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the unit, which constituted a deficiency in service. The agreement was signed on 23rd August 2009, and the construction was not completed, with no certainty about when the possession could be offered.

The District Commission referred to Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which defines 'unfair trade practices' as adopting unfair or deceptive methods to promote the sale, use, or supply of goods or services. It referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta [1994 (1) SCC 243], where the Supreme Court held that a delay in possession constitutes both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Moreover, in Fortune Infrastructure and Anr. vs. Trevor D'Lima and Ors. [2018 (5) SCC 442], the Supreme Court held that individuals should not be made to wait indefinitely for possession and are entitled to a refund along with compensation.

Regarding the Builder's objection that the Complainant was not a consumer, the District Commission found no evidence to prove that the Complainant booked the unit for investment purposes.

Consequently, the District Commission found the Builder guilty of deficiency in service. The District Commission ordered the Builder to refund Rs. 6,90,379/- to the Complainant with interest at 9% per annum. Additionally, the District Commission directed the Builder to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. It was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.

Case Title: Mrs. Sitara Shahin vs M/S Ansal Landmark Townships Private Limited

Case Number: CC/248/2019